Climategate 2.0

[beyelzu]

We show that in the global average, the magnitude of heat extremes significantly increased while that of cold extremes decreased at a faster rate.

Growing prevalence of heat over cold extremes with overall milder extremes and multiple successive events | Communications Earth & Environment

This article is from 2022 and looks at climate through 2018.

Despite the rapid warming that is the cardinal signature of global climate change, especially in the Arctic, where temperatures are rising much more than elsewhere in the world, the United States and other regions of the Northern Hemisphere have experienced a conspicuous and increasingly frequent number of episodes of extremely cold winter weather over the past four decades. Cohen et al. combined observations and models to demonstrate that Arctic change is likely an important cause of a chain of processes involving what they call a stratospheric polar vortex disruption, which ultimately results in periods of extreme cold in northern midlatitudes

Meanwhile we also have studies showing how agw climate change can lead to polar vortexes and cold weather events.

Linking Arctic variability and change with extreme winter weather in the United States.

I’ve got to say that I’ll take the published science by experts using data over the feelings and vague recollections of a lay person.

[ceptimus]

-FX- is questioning if the climate change models predicted the increased frequency of extreme cold events. There's no doubt that the models can be tweaked to predict such events now.

It's a little like psychologists explaining that a criminal behaves the way he does, because his mother didn't love him, and mistreated him as a child. But when it's pointed out to the psychologists that his mother was actually very loving, and never mistreated him, then they say, 'In that case, his behaviour is due to him being smothered with affection as a child'.

Any model that can be tweaked, after the event, to explain what actually happened, is not much use as a predictive model, though it may still be useful in building understanding about the phenomena it's attempting to predict.

Another common science that is useful, while not generating accurate predictions, is economics. Witness politicians and news reporters explaining why the stock market rose, or inflation decreased: they always have a plausible sounding explanation, even when the trend is in the opposite direction to what they were promising or predicting previously.

[beyelzu]

Hi cept, how’s it going?

I understand what you are saying but FX also made a factual claim about the frequency of cold weather events, one of the links holds that the opposite is true, the second link just explains how agw is causing a polar vortex.

I also disagree that economists can’t make predictions and I would suggest that if you want to look at the work of economists, you should look at the work of economists and not politicians and news reporters who are not economists.

Politicians and reporters push things like flat taxes and the gold standard that have very little support from economists.

As to the predictive power of our climate models.

However, more recent analyses, dating back decades, have found that many of even the earliest models were remarkably accurate in their predictions of global temperature increases. Now, as computing power increases and more and more refinements are added to modeling inputs, modelers are more confident in defending their work. As a result, says Dana Nuccitelli, author of Climatology versus Pseudoscience: Exposing the Failed Predictions of Global Warming Skeptics, “there’s definitely been a shift away from outright climate science denial; because the predictions have turned out to be so accurate, it’s getting harder and harder to deny the science at this point.”

It’s not clear to me that they lack predictive power.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/e...-a-nobel-prize

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by fragment

Show your data, not your feels.

I did that for about 8 years, at which point I realized data, facts, are the last thing that will matter when it comes to political/religious beliefs.

I can prove this, but again, data/facts will not matter in that regard either.

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by -FX-

Also, there is that problem of it is getting colder.

Originally Posted by mickthinks

lol. Who told you that? And why do you believe them?

Originally Posted by beyelzu

ironic, isn't it?

[mickthinks]

Only in the Dunning-Kruger sense, dude!

When you wrote:

Originally Posted by -FX-

Also, there is that problem of it is getting colder.

... "it" was clearly the entire globe, as in "Anthropomorphic Global Warming". Now you are pretending that "it" was the weather in some places, er ... sometimes.

You're arguing in bad faith.

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by -FX-

ironic, isn't it?

What a wonderful example of a climate denier being disingenuous!

I included two links, one that said the magnitude of cold weather events had decreased for the earth as a whole and another that explains how a particular region has cold events because of agw, you ignore the first, quote the second and ignore all context to say that the source supports a cooling trend when it expressly does not.



This is why I don’t bother to talk to you directly most of the time.

Dialogue isnt really possible when one person argues in bad faith.

It’s not even a good job of selectively quoting, the bolded part says the earth is warming, fucktard

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Gonna climate deny troll, put some imagination in.